Obama: “ISIL is not ‘Islamic,'” but let’s talk about ‘terrible deeds in the name of Christ’

President Obama gave an address to the nation on September 10, 2014 in which he said “ISIL is not ‘Islamic.'” Today, at the annual National Prayer Breakfast, he reminded the world of that by oddly mentioning people who “committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” during the Crusades.

Only days after the Islamic State group began burning its victims alive, and only days after Boko Haram did the exact same thing in Cameroon (90 civilians slaughtered), Mr. Obama decided it was the perfect time to wag his finger at Christians over … the Crusades. Oddly enough, none of the president’s speechwriters thought it would be a good idea to remind him that the Crusades were born out of the need to push back against Islamic empire-building.

The president said that while religion is a source for good around the world, people of all faiths have been willing to “hijack religion for their own murderous ends.”

“Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

“So it is not unique to one group or one religion,” Obama said. “There is a tendency in us, a simple tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.”

Islamic radical terrorist groups are chopping off heads and burning men alive in 2015, and president Obama’s brilliant idea is to start erroneously lecturing audiences on battles that took place around 1100. Worst of all, the man bends over backward to not mention Islam in connection with Islamic terrorist groups, and yet he is quick to throw out Christ’s name to admonish Christians. To rub salt in their wounds, it’s coming from a man who sat in “Reverend” Jeremiah “God d**n America! Dat’s in-da Bible!” Wright’s church for 20 years.

In Mr. Obama’s mind, the Crusades just sprang up out of nowhere. In Mr. Obama’s mind, Christians just marched off to Jerusalem to kill Muslims for no apparent reason. He believes it is inappropriate to call terrorism committed in the name of Islam “Islamic terrorism,” but it is appropriate lay guilt trips on Americans for the actions of the first settlers (never mind the fact that slavery in some form or another was practiced in all cultures throughout the history of mankind until Western Civilization took control).

The Spanish Inquisition claimed around 3,000 lives — or, put another way, 23 more than those lost during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The point isn’t to begin to start a tit-for-tat death toll debate, but to show that Mr. Obama’s bizarre warnings to Christians makes no sense when one considers the fact that Libya and Iraq have imploded, Afghanistan is a mess, Syria is on fire, and Yemen and Pakistan are giant question marks — right now.

Americans need leadership in this present moment, and all they’re getting from Mr. Obama is a poorly crafted history lesson.

Exit question: Who would you rather trust with your life: Jordan’s King Abdullah II or President Obama? The former Cobra attack helicopter pilot, or the community organizer?

Related

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance.
I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

This week has been a painful one in terms of covering national security issues. Sometimes things like this will happen and I’ll think, “Should I just read tonight? Perhaps write my book?” and then the blogger in me will say, “Nope. You know you need to chronicle and share this.”

I heard that the King isn’t leading anything, but still, having a cobra helicopter pilot is neat and even if he stays at home or just leads from a helicopter near the battlefield, he’s a million times cooler than a guy like Obama (even if, admittedly, Obama started smaller and had to claw his way up).

Becoming president of the United States is certainly a feat that requires a lot of clawing. Given that Obama’s father abandoned him, that story is even more impressive. However, I think sometimes people forget that Obama went to Hawaiian prep schools, and that in many way his political career was not really one that required much clawing at all. He was fast-tracked, much to the chagrin of loyal Democrats who “did their time” for years, only to be usurped by the kid from Chicago who wrote multiple autobiographies before accomplished anything.

I also find it very intriguing that for a guy who is obsessed with showing the world how smart he is, his college transcripts have not been released to this very day.

Since I had thoughts along similar lines when commenting last night, I can’t be to critical on what Obama said, but reasoning seems different. I was saying Christians had to change Christianity from within, and it was a good thing, perhaps a blueprint for nonviolent Islam; he is seemingly saying we all have inner demons…..as if the Inquisition happened last week….and never directly acknowledging the pattern of violence that continues with burning people alive….which did happen this week (the video released this week).

No other groups are lopping off Japanese journalists’ heads or setting pilots on fire; I think he’s lecturing the wrong people. The lecturing itself gets tiresome too, lecturing and hash tags aren’t stopping terrorism.

Patrick, there is a gulf of a difference between what you said and what Obama said. Here’s the difference: Obama refuses to say “Islamic terrorism.” He won’t ever pair “Islamic” and “The Taliban” in the same zip code. He won’t do that for the Islamic State group. He won’t do that for al Qaeda. He parses his words all day long to make sure we’re only talking about a very thin sliver of Muslims, but yet he has zero problem spouting off about “terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” He’s willing to talk about all of Christianity — but yet he doesn’t apply that standard to Islam.

No other groups are lopping off Japanese journalists’ heads or setting pilots on fire; I think he’s lecturing the wrong people. The lecturing itself gets tiresome too, lecturing and hash tags aren’t stopping terrorism.

Exactly.

When was the last time Obama talked about anything remotely resembling “terrible deeds in the name of Mohammed”? Seriously. You can’t find that because Obama will only talk about “extremism” and “twisting religion” (without ever mentioning Islam) when he’s discussing al Qaeda, the Islamic State group, etc.

What you forget, Patrick, is that the blueprints for changes into how Christians acted… was in the religion they professed to practice all along, and the failure was WITH THEM for not being able to practice what they preached.

Again, I’d to re-empathize, that in order to make Islam not violet… who’d have to change the religion itself because, unlike Christianity, the blueprint for piece IS NOT THERE and is completely, and utterly, FOREIGN so much to the point that you would have created a NEW religion, whose adherents would make fine targets, for ACTUAL Muslims who take what they are commanded to do seriously.

Saying that non-violent reformations in Christianity (IE, taking the religion seriously) would ‘perhaps [form] a blueprint for nonviolent Islam…’ should be the textbook definition of a false equivalency and a false hope.

The fact that most Muslims aren’t actively waging Jihad is only indicative of:

1. Those Muslims either providing material or emotional support.

2. Those Muslims who actually know what their religion demands of them engaged in Stealth Jihad, including Taqiya.

3. Those Muslims being ignorant of what their religion commands either through no fault of their own or plugging their ears going, ‘Lalalalala Not listening,’ and genuinely desiring to be better than their prophet and their darkly humorous parody of God.

Hey Doug, do you have any good sources on why Christians are not called to be pacifists? I mean, I know soldiers are mentioned converting to Christianity numerous times and yet neither Christ or the Apostles ever decides to use that as an opportunity to say, ‘Causing harm to someone is wrong regardless of the context, even in cases of self-defense.’

I’d take a look at C.S. Lewis’ “Why I am not a Pacifist” for a good overarching explanation on why absolute pacifism is a rather bizarre thing to adopt for a Christian. I’m not 100 percent sure, but I don’t believe Whittaker Chambers became an absolute pacifist even after becoming a Quaker. That would make sense since the Soviet Union still wanted him dead… “Witness” is, of course, also a good read. It’s not directly related to your question…but I think reading that book would still answer your question.

“1. Jesus’ admonition to “turn the other cheek” is not to be taken absolutely, to apply in all circumstances (e.g., a student striking a teacher, a criminal attacking an officer) but is rather concerned with inter-personal relationships. This is a distinction I have heard before and which seems reasonable.

Except that the actual pacifism demonstrated by Jesus (and commended later by Peter in his first epistle) did not have anything to do with personal relationships. He was abused by strangers, by representatives of the religious authority and the State. Nothing personal about those attacks, yet Jesus, who had every reason to retaliate, to protect Himself, submitted meekly to those torments.

2. Pacifism is politically impractical. In the end, the strictly observant pacifist is dominated by the bully, whether in the schoolyard or in international relations. In a fallen world, pacifism works well only as a theory, not in real life.

Except that “in the end” the unspeakable suffering of Jesus did prevail — as did the suffering of the protesters in India and the civil rights activists in the American South. Given enough time, it would appear that it is pacifism, not militarism, that is ultimately triumphant.

This isn’t, of course, mere theory. All of us have to make daily decisions about how we will respond to abuse and threats. “Turn the other cheek” and “love your enemy” are what Christ taught and what He exemplified.

And it’s not just a personal matter. The Newtown shootings have thrust the gun debate back into the national spotlight. I have yet to hear a Christian argue for the right to bear arms along the lines of WWJD. It seems that whenever a Christian argues for the right to protect and defend with deadly force, the teachings of Jesus must be set aside.

I am no pacifist, but I cannot argue against the biblical soundness of the position.”

Except that “in the end” the unspeakable suffering of Jesus did prevail — as did the suffering of the protesters in India and the civil rights activists in the American South. Given enough time, it would appear that it is pacifism, not militarism, that is ultimately triumphant.

In both instances the oppressed were freed of their servitude by their masters — men born of Western Civilization and all the great things that come with it (e.g., Christian thought).

Did Jesus teach you to be an idiot? He gave you a life, didn’t he? Isn’t that life incredibly precious? Why on earth would he then expect you to sit there with your thumb up your butt in a life-threatening situation when self-defense was called for?

When Jesus spoke to the Roman centurion he praised him and told him to go home and see that his faith had been rewarded. He didn’t go into a Michael Moore-ish anti-war rant and tell the centurion to take up fishing.

Muslims are the ultimate colonizers. Every country they become the majority in is gutted, any culture and artifacts not destroyed becoming a thin husk concealing a grisly, evil core.

I was taught that the creation of Pakistan was a good thing, and that the Mughals had done a lot of good for the subcontinent. Now I know that’s untrue. When the Arabs invaded in the 800s they slaughtered a thriving civilization and replaced it with their own barbaric one. The Mughals did innovate in architecture, for example, but they were brutal leaders. And Pakistan turned out to be an absolute fluke, a “giant question mark” that is so dangerous to live in the more educated of us are leaving. The achievement of my great-grandfather in helping Jinnah with independence is tempered when I square it against the anti-Hindu riots after partition that killed scores of people, and the aggressive desire to replace other religions with Islam.

And this is just one country!

I’ve been unstuck from Islam since last summer’s Israel kerfluffle, and recently I made the decision to accept the word of Christ. So far it has been a good choice.

Muslims are the ultimate colonizers. Every country they become the majority in is gutted, any culture and artifacts not destroyed becoming a thin husk concealing a grisly, evil core.

Okay Starfire, if this isn’t total bait to make me say something that Dan Slott will use to hammer me for in future social media meltdowns, then I don’t know what is. 😉 Regardless, I will say that if one looks at majority-Muslim nations around the globe, the record on human rights is pretty horrid. I suppose the president and others can come up with all sorts of reasons why that is the case, but at the end of the day there is one common denominator.